POLICY MAKING MODELS AND THEIR ROLEIN POLICY EDUCATION

Alan J. HahnCornell University

The purposes of this paper are to (1) review commonly used modelsof policy making and discuss their applications in policy educationand (2) summarize recent developments in research and theory andspeculate about their implications for policy education.

Commonly Used Models

The following models are those covered in standard textbooks onpublic policy (e.g., Anderson; Dye).

Institutionalism. This is the traditional, "classical" approach. Thefocus is on the structures, organization, duties and functions of gov-ernmental institutions. Policies are sometimes described, but neveranalyzed. Institutionalism has its application in policy educationthrough the use of organization charts. Though often uninterestingto audiences, organization charts have the advantage of addressingbasic questions that anyone who wishes to be politically influentialneeds to answer: What unit of government or agency is responsiblefor what? What are the lines of authority and accountability?

Systems Theory. Systems theory emphasizes the environment ofpolitical systems, input and outputs (generally in the form of de-mands and support on the one hand and public policies on the other)and feedback. The systems framework is widely used, but often im-plicitly. It can be helpful in counteracting the tendency to describe oranalyze political systems as if they were self-contained. The fallacy ofdoing so is clearest at the local level, but may prove most costlynationally. If systems theory (or some other framework) can helppeople understand external linkages and how to influence them orrespond to them, educators should make more use of these models.

Pluralism. Group theory, the most common version of pluralismused to explain national political behavior, interprets policy makingas the result of influence by groups. At the local level, there is lessemphasis on groups, but influential individuals are perceived as di-verse, conflicting and different from one issue to another. Conflict

222

and competition have prominent roles in this model. It is recognizedthat not all interests are organized or influential, but there is a ten-dency to assume a "frictionless transition" from shared interests toformation of an effective group (Henig). In policy education, pluralistmodels are especially helpful in emphasizing the diversity of partici-pants and interests, the likelihood of conflict and the importance ofwillingness to work on conflict resolution.

Elitism. This model recognizes that most people are uninvolvedand uninfluential. Policy making on most issues is heavily influ-enced by elites. Although it may be assumed that elites act in theinterests of others (as well as themselves), elections are consideredlargely symbolic, with elites often described as manipulating publicopinion rather than being influenced by it. Despite the undeniablepresence of conflict within the elite, its members are assumed toshare a fundamental consensus. Influence is often exercised behindthe scenes. In policy education, elite models help emphasize inequal-ities among those who participate in policy making or experienceits outcomes. In different hands, these disparities are attributed toapathy on the part of the masses or manipulation by elites.

Process Models. Process models attempt to generalize about thesequence of steps or actions that occur as policy issues are raised,debated and resolved. They focus more on what happens, when andhow than on who the participants are and why particular outcomesoccur. A typical example includes the stages of problem identifica-tion, proposal formulation, program legitimation, program budget-ing, program implementation, program evaluation and problemresolution/program termination (Jones). Process models are widelyused in policy education. They help answer obviously pressing ques-tions such as, "Where do we start?" and "What happens next?"

Rationalism. Anderson treats rationalism and incrementalism asmodels of decision making, rather than policy making, on groundsthat they have a narrower focus. Both have had considerable influ-ence on process models. Rationalism attempts to describe a process ofefficient decision making. It typically includes the stages of clarify-ing and ranking goals, identifying an array of alternatives for reach-ing the goals, predicting the consequences of each alternative,comparing the anticipated consequences of the various alternativesand selecting the alternative that maximizes the attainment ofgoals. Rationalism has been criticized for being unrealistic in termsof information and analytical requirements and unable to deal withsituations in which goals are unknown or in dispute. It treats deci-sion making as an intellectual process rather than a political one.

Incrementalism. The incremental model was formulated in reactionto rationalism and offered as a prescriptive model as well as a betterdescription of reality. It states that decision makers are more likelyto move away from problems than toward goals; only a limited num-ber of alternatives are considered (specifically, ones that differ only

223

marginally from the status quo); only direct, short-range conse-quences are considered for each alternative; only enough analysis isdone to find a solution that policy makers can agree on; and adjust-ments are continually made if solutions remain unacceptable.

I have an image of the political system as a mountain, and thesemodels are pictures of the mountain from different angles and dis-tances. Institutionalism is a drawing showing the geological struc-ture of the mountain without the plants, animals and humanactivity occurring on it. Systems theory is a photograph taken with awide-angle lens, or perhaps an aerial photograph, helpful in seeingthe mountain's relationship with its surroundings. Elitism is astraightforward snapshot in which the mountain's peak-like summit,steep sides and vegetation zones are plainly visible. Pluralism is acloser view, taken perhaps by someone who is climbing the moun-tain, in which we lose sight of the simpler geometry of the elite viewand are impressed instead by a confusion of cliffs, canyons, trees,boulders and multiple summits. Process models, despite the typicalanalogy, are not like motion pictures. In a movie, we see the samecontent as in a snapshot, but enjoy the addition of movement. Inprocess models, we see movement and change, but lose most of thecontent. We lose the geological structure, the surroundings, the gen-eral shape of the mountain and the details.

None of the models give a complete impression of the mountain.For that we need all of them (and possibly more). The same is true ofpeople's understanding of a political system. Education for PublicDecisions (House and Young) is right to recommend a repertoire ofmodels. It would bother me, however, to think of them as alternativesthat educators draw on as needed or as they feel comfortable. I ammore inclined to think that we need all of them (or at least several) orthat we need to develop new models that reconcile and integrate as-pects of various existing ones.

In the remainder of this paper I will focus on three models-process, elitism and pluralism. These are the models that Educationfor Public Decisions covers. They provide a reasonable cross-section.We need process models as well as the others because they addressdifferent questions-what, when and how, rather than who and why.We need elite models because the diversity of interests involved inpolicy making is not as complete as pluralism implies, nor is theconflict among them as equally balanced. We need pluralist modelsbecause consensus at the top is not as great as elitism implies, nor isthe elite as secure from challenge. Reality is elusive, hard to capturein a simple model, perhaps best described by the concept of "competi-tive elites" (Gamson) or the analogy of the American political systemas, not a pyramid, but a plateau with a flat top and steep sides(Wolff).

224

Process Models and Policy Education

In looking for recent developments vis-a-vis process models, it oc-curs to me that these models have rarely captured the attention ofresearchers. They are widely used, but mainly as "how-to-do-it"guidelines or organizing devices for the chapters of a textbook. Theirdescriptive accuracy or explanatory power has rarely been tested.Interesting recent developments have taken place in the area of the-ory and prescription rather than research.

The principal development is the search for alternatives to the ra-tional model. One place where this is clear is in the literature onplanning. Rationalism is taught most frequently in planning schoolsand used most frequently by planners to describe their work if notactually guide it. Yet criticisms are as widespread as its use. Theliterature on planning theory is full of efforts and admonitions todevelop a new model. Several alternatives have been offered, amongthem incrementalism, advocacy planning, transactive planning andecological and structural radicalism (Hudson). Each of these can bethought of as an effort to provide guidance on the political side ofplanning: "Accommodate the tendency of the political system tomake only small changes at a time" (incrementalism); "Help lessinfluential groups have an equal voice in policy making" (advocacy);"Collaborate with policy makers in determining goals and makeyour technical work part of a mutual learning process" (transactiveplanning); "Eliminate relationships of power and hierarchy" (eco-logical radicalism); "Make your planning work responsive to theunderlying structural dimensions of power" (structural radicalism).

So far, however, none of the models has proven sufficiently compel-ling to replace rationalism as the dominant paradigm (de Neufville;Alexander). They promise too little (in the case of incrementalism,which seems unduly tolerant of our tendency to "stagger throughhistory like a drunk putting one disjointed incremental foot afteranother" (Boulding, p. 931), deliver too little (in the case of advocacy,which failed to resolve the paradox of governmental support for plan-ners who challenged government) or seem excessively vague or unre-alistic (the transactive and radical models).

Implications for Policy Education. What I think is needed in plan-ning is a model that differs from rationalism by incorporating poli-tics, but doesn't throw the baby out with the bath. The planner'smost compelling resource is systematically gathered, analyzed andinterpreted information. Planners need a model that shows how thetechnical side of their work is or should be combined with the politi-cal side. Such a model would need to show how the political dimen-sion of one's work dictates the choice of methods and how thetechnical work, in turn, affects the political process and its outcomes.For me at least the transactive model has the most promise. It por-trays planners as engaged in transactive relationships with both pol-

225

icy makers and citizens (Friedmann). Planners bring technicalknowledge to the relationships while policy makers and citizensbring personal knowledge. In addition, planners facilitate a processwhereby technical and personal knowledge are combined and citi-zens, policy makers and planners work together on goals as well asmeans in a process of mutual learning.

Such a model can be readily translated from planners to educators.It would pose two important challenges. One is to refine our ability tocombine the contributions of "subject-matter" and "process" expertsin designing and conducting educational programs. We often keepthe two separate. Subject-matter education often fails to include theprovision of process skills in leadership or policy making, while pro-cess education is conducted independently of specific issues (or dealswith issues on which extension lacks subject-matter expertise). An-other challenge is to design and conduct educational programs withan interplay between education and action: repeated opportunitiesfor citizens and policy makers to take action on the basis of whatthey have learned and then come back for additional education. Theissue evolution/educational intervention model (House and Young)can be used as a basis for developing both of these ideas.

Pluralism, Elitism and Policy Education

In contrast to process models, pluralism and elitism have domi-nated the attention of researchers. I see three recent developmentswith implications for policy education.

Attention to Implications for Citizens

In Walton's commentary on the community power literature thatdeveloped in the wake of Hunter's 1953 study of Atlanta, Waltonobserves that social scientists have lost sight of Hunter's originalmotivation to study "the origins of public policy and strategic pointsof access" (p. 297). Hunter's primary concern was that policies that"appear to be manipulated to the advantage of relatively few" areenacted "with no precise knowledge on the part of the majority ofcitizens as to how these policies originated or by whom they are re-ally sponsored" (p. 295). Subsequent research took a different tack,however, becoming preoccupied with the identity and behavior of keypolicy makers or influentials and offering little insight into implica-tions for ordinary citizens or strategies for citizen action.

In my opinion, the best source of insight into citizen action is pro-vided by the literature on social movements. Researchers have stud-ied how movements for or against change emerge, recruit followers,generate commitment and influence public values, opinions and poli-cies (Garner; Hahn). Few writers, however, have made explicit con-nections between social movements and power structures-how

226

movements change power structures, or how power structures giverise to movements and obstruct or promote their success (Heasley).

Negative consequences of inattention to implications for citizens donot fall only on citizens. We have witnessed a two-decade record ofdeclining trust, efficacy and participation. Such conditions have highpotential for negative consequences for the system in general and forpolicy makers and the interests they represent in particular. Yanke-lovich contrasts the nation's prompt response to Sputnik in the 1950swith the failure to gain public respect for the seriousness of the prob-lem of oil shortages during the OPEC oil embargo. "Thebreakdown... happened because a widespread lack of trust in gov-ernment and big business had led many people to assume that thetwo powers were in collusion to jack up gas prices and increase theprofits of the oil companies" (p. 27). Yankelovich suggests that thesame thing is likely to happen on other issues.

Implications for policy education. In addition to the need for newmodels that emphasize the connections between citizens and policymakers, we need to do a more deliberate job of educating both groupson the same topics. We frequently provide policy makers withsubject-matter education on policy issues. How often do we providethe same information to citizens? If we do educate citizens on thesame topics, do we really give them opportunities to learn about pol-icy issues and policy making processes or simply teach them whatthey can do as individuals or families to solve policy problems thatother people have defined? When we offer policy education programsfor citizens how often do we fail to connect process assistance withspecific issues (and consequently attract small audiences and reachmostly people who are already reasonably knowledgeable)? And howoften do we fail to do even that, fearing that we will antagonize pol-icy makers if our efforts happen to be successful?

The Cornell Planning Matrix (House and Young) is designed tohelp educators plan "comprehensive" educational programs that fo-cus on specific issues and include appropriate components for citizensand policy makers. One example is Housing Options for Seniors To-day (HOST) (Pollak, et al. 1986; Pollak and Gorman 1987). In "consu-mer workshops," older people and their families learn about variousoptions for older people's housing (accessory apartments, home shar-ing, etc.) and about relevant policy issues, such as possible need fornew agencies or programs or for changes in zoning ordinances beforecertain options are available. In "professional updates," personnel inhuman service agencies, church groups, civic associations and otherorganizations learn about the housing situations and problems ofolder people, about the various options and about the policy issuesand what organizations like theirs can do to help. In workshops on"removing regulatory barriers," local government officials and plan-ners obtain the technical information necessary for making changesin zoning ordinances or other regulations if they wish to do so.

227

Recognition of the Importance of Agenda Setting

The concept of agenda setting is not a new development. Schattsch-neider noted that the way in which issues were formulated had agreat effect on who became involved and who didn't. Bachrach andBaratz criticized pluralism for ignoring the second of "two faces ofpower," the ability to prevent unwanted outcomes by keeping poten-tially threatening issues off the agenda (or manipulating the wayissues are defined). Pluralist research like Dahl's 1961 study of NewHaven was based on the assumption that one ought to study actualbehavior in connection with specific issues (rather than mere reputa-tions, as earlier research leading to elitist conclusions had done).Neo-elitists argued, however, that in doing so the pluralists com-pletely missed the opportunity to study the second face of power: theability to keep unwanted issues from arising in the first place.

Beginning in the late 1970s, several studies provided empiricalsupport for many of the neo-elitists' assertions. Domhoff (1978a), forexample, reanalyzed one of Dahl's issues and provides evidence thatbusiness leaders had much more influence in New Haven than Dahlindicated. Prior to the time period covered by Dahl's study, Chamberof Commerce leaders devised plans for downtown redevelopment, de-veloped a workable consensus within the business community andcommunicated their plans to local government. The plans carried outby public officials, as described by Dahl, were almost exactly the onesdeveloped by the business leaders a decade earlier.

Domhoff (1978b) argues that business leaders play a large role inshaping future agendas, doing so through Chambers of Commerceand similar organizations at the local level and such organizations asthe Committee on Economic Development, Business Roundtable orU.S. Chamber of Commerce at the national level. These "policy plan-ning organizations" are not necessarily influential in the "helter-skelter" of special-interest politics. But they provide opportunitiesfor business leaders to "familiarize themselves with general issues ina relaxed and off-the-record setting"; resolve conflicts and work outcompromises within the business community; shape the "climate ofopinion" in the country or community at large through "books, jour-nals, policy statements, press releases and speakers' bureaus"; andcommunicate informally with public officials.

Evidence that policy makers ignore issues that would be threaten-ing to dominant interests is reported in studies by Crenson andGaventa. Crenson shows how city officials in Gary, Indiana, whereU.S. Steel was the city's major employer and taxpayer, either failed toact on proposals for air pollution regulation or passed essentiallytoothless legislation. Gaventa reports that in Clear Fork Valley, anAppalachian coal mining community, public debate was confined to"such things as a low tax rate, distribution of beer licenses and therenovation of the courthouse" (p. 137), while undertaxation of the

228

mining companies, reclamation of strip-mined land and inadequatehousing never reached the agenda. As Gaventa emphasizes, controlover the agenda not only maintains power, but also discourages par-ticipation by people who might become involved if issues they caredabout were on the agenda (see also Lukes).

Implications for Policy Education. The main implication for policyeducators is that we can be accused of contributing to prevailingbiases if we educate only on issues that are already on the agenda (oraccept prevailing definitions of the issues). We need policy educationprograms that begin before issues reach the agenda. We should beginwith whatever concerns are on people's minds, regardless of whetherthey have been acknowledged as issues or not. Rather than findingways to convince people that they ought to take an interest in exist-ing issues, we need to let them indicate what is bothering them,what they care about, what they are worried about. Then see if thereare policy dimensions to their concerns, if there are potential actionsby agencies, business firms, interest groups or public policy makersthat could help resolve their concerns. If there are (and there almostalways will be), then we should help people learn about these newlydiscovered policy issues, understand how the relevant decisions aremade (with special attention to how issues get on the agenda), andacquire the skills necessary for effective participation.

At Cornell, we are taking a step in this direction by trying to incor-porate policy education in existing subject-matter programs. InHOST, people who come to learn about housing options may alsolearn that new programs or agencies have to be created before cer-tain options are available or that other options are currently prohib-ited by zoning regulations (Pollak, et al. 1986). In programs ondrinking water quality, people who come to learn how to have theirwater tested or what treatment devices to buy also learn how waterquality standards are established and enforced and how land-use con-trols can be used to protect water supplies (Lemley).

There is also a burgeoning literature on "empowerment" thatought to be helpful. Empowerment is defined as "an interactive pro-cess through which people experience personal and social change,enabling them to achieve influence over the organizations and insti-tutions that affect their lives and the communities in which theylive" (Whitmore, p. 4). Some approaches to empowerment remain atthe interpersonal level, leading to increases in confidence and self-esteem, but leaving questions about their impact on public issues(Greene). Many of the most effective approaches, including ones usedin the United States, are based on the work of Paolo Friere in Brazil.The basic assumption of these approaches is that "people will act onthe issues on which they have strong feelings. All educational proj-ects should start by identifying the issues that local people speakabout with excitement, hope, fear, anxiety or anger" (Hope and Tim-mel, p. 8). For a U.S. example see Coover, et al. These approaches

229

begin with a "listening survey" in which teams of facilitators andlocal people identify the themes that people in a community careabout deeply. The themes are then translated into "codes"-pictures,stories, songs or plays, for example-that pose problems familiar inthe lives of local people. The idea is not to present solutions, but toraise questions that are then explored through dialogue between fa-cilitator and participants (p. 55). The dialogue moves through suchquestions as: What do you see happening in the picture? Why is ithappening? Does this happen in real life? What problems does it leadto? What are the root causes of these problems? What can we doabout it? (p. 60).

Criticism of the Constraining Influence ofPrevailing Values

Lukes argues that power has not only two faces but a third dimen-sion as well: the capacity to shape or maintain a value system thatdiscourages people from perceiving situations as problems deservingpublic attention. Gaventa illustrates the point in his study of theClear Fork Valley. Domination of the local culture by coal miningcompanies began in the 1880s when they acquired most of the land.Today, the people of the valley know that most of the land was ac-quired in unjust ways and that monopoly of land ownership is themajor obstacle to improvement of living and working conditions.Even though serious grievances about poverty, inequality and envi-ronmental demise were "not hard to discover," the unequal distribu-tion of land was "often ... accepted as a natural, ineradicable fact ofthe social structure" (p. 55). Most other degradations and inequal-ities were accepted in the same way. Many potential issues were notraised or even recognized as issues. The raising or recognizing ofissues was inhibited by assumptions that decisions by the miningcompanies should not be challenged, that criticism of the status quowas "socialistic" or "communistic" and that people should not en-gage in activity likely to lead to conflict or unpleasantness.

In the early 1960s it was argued that we had reached the end ofideology-a fundamental consensus that made deep social and politi-cal cleavages and ideological conflict a thing of the past or an afflic-tion suffered only in other parts of the world. Ideologies were likelyto be defined as "simplification(s) of complex problems, erroneousinterpretations or deliberate distortions of reality, or... psycholog-ical prop(s) for the intellectually or emotionally maladept" (Bouchier,p. 10). Today they are more likely to be defined simply as explana-tions of "(1) how the present social, economic, and political orderoperates, (2) why this is so, and whether it is good or bad, and (3)what should be done about it, if anything" (Dolbeare and Dolbeare,p. 1). In these terms, liberalism or capitalism are ideologies no lessthan socialism or communism. Ideologies can be necessary ingredi-ents in the mobilization of social movements, but can also contribute

230

to the third dimension of power by promoting pride and patriotismand discouraging the recognition of problems or perception of themas potential public issues.

If those who benefit from the failure to raise certain issues didnothing to create or sustain the conditions from which they benefit,we could dismiss this line of argument as nothing more than thegrumbling of frustrated radicals. But those who benefit from the sta-tus quo are not necessarily innocent. They may invoke the symbols of"socialism" or "un-Americanism" to discourage or disparage theircritics. They may insist on peaceful adherence to the "rules of thegame" even when other people are disadvantaged by the rules. Theymay actively and consciously shape or reinforce the symbols and val-ues from which they benefit. As Domhoff (1978a) argues, corpora-tions, foundations and national business organizations work hard tocreate a climate of opinion favorable to business. These efforts do notcreate a consensus in favor of the status quo, but do maintain confu-sion and doubt about the credibility of competing messages. InDomhoffs words, they "help ensure that an alternative view does notconsolidate to replace the resigned acquiescence and disinterest...of Americans at the lower levels of the socioeconomic ladder" (p. 192).

Implications for policy education. The implication is that we arewrong when we say that educators should stick with facts and leavevalues alone. Preston and Smith, writing about college teaching, ar-gue that students need to be taught that values are necessary ele-ments in empirical explanation and facts can be used in developingand justifying value claims. Whether it is a fact that "an electionwas held in November" depends in part on value judgments as towhat an election ought to be. The event in November might havebeen a "plebiscite" or only "a mass exercise in digital dexterity" (p.87). Likewise, a value claim like "democracy is better than rule byelites" can be tested against factual evidence regarding people's ca-pacity for "acquiring political knowledge, making (or at least recog-nizing) informed policy recommendations, and reaching agreementon... important public issues" (p. 87). Students in Preston's classesare expected to justify their beliefs with arguments "that would bepersuasive to all citizens" (p. 88). They are expected "to be familiarwith the claims of conflicting political philosophies and to reach con-clusions that reconcile diverse views" (p. 88). To Preston and Smith,the fact-value dichotomy is an "intellectual dead end" that ignoresthe central role of values in political life and turns its back on the"fundamental value problems that are central to our continued per-sonal and collective survival" (p. 90).

Among adult educators, Mezirow (1981), borrowing ideas from Ger-man philosopher Jurgen Habermas, argues that adults need to ac-quire not only empirical knowledge and shared interpretations, butalso "self-knowledge" in the sense of understanding the "psycho-cultural assumptions" that limit their expectations, awareness of op-

231

tions and ability to control their own lives. These assumptionsinclude belief systems "uncritically assimilated in childhood" as wellas psychological inhibitions "evoked from childhood traumas" (Me-zirow 1985, pp. 144-45). Just as psychoanalysis can help people dealwith the latter, Mezirow believes that similar assistance should beavailable to bring cultural assumptions "into critical consciousness"and enable people to take corrective action. As possible approaches,he cites Friere's work with Brazilian peasants and support groups(feminist groups, for example) in which alternative perspectives arepresented and learners are encouraged to apply insights to their ownlives (p. 19).

It does not have to be assumed that such learning requires reject-ing currently dominant values and ideologies or opting in favor ofsome particular alternative. The point is simply to enable people tomove beyond the uncritical, unthinking acceptance of currently domi-nant values. Such learning would seem to involve at least two steps:becoming open to critical perspectives on currently dominant valuesand ideologies and becoming open to potential alternatives. To con-tribute to such learning, educators would have to reject the idea thatthey cannot deal with values.

Several possibilities occur to me. Imagine a workshop in which peo-ple are learning how to analyze policy alternatives. We might drawon the scientific methods (as the rational model does) to help themassess the factual dimensions of alternative proposals. We could alsoborrow tools from philosophy to help them critique the proposals'value dimensions, testing the logic with which they are connected tohigher-order values and the adequacy of their factual basis. Or sup-pose we offered workshops on "improving your policy arguments."Policy arguments can be divided into "action statements" (proposalsas to what should be done), "factual statements" and "value state-ments" (Hambrick and Snyder). Assistance could be offered onstrengthening each of these. In the case of value statements, learnerswould be encouraged to assess the logic and factual basis of theirvalue claims. In either of these examples, people would have the op-portunity to think seriously about values they normally take forgranted.

In order to facilitate openness to alternative values or ideologies,consider another possibility. When we outline alternatives and conse-quences regarding a particular policy issue, suppose we intentionallyincluded those derived from an array of competing ideologies (such asthe Dolbeares' typology of liberalism, capitalism, populism, social-ism, anarchism, black liberation, women's liberation, Marxism andfuturism). People would have their attention called to policy alterna-tives or interpretations of consequences that flow from a number ofnormally submerged perspectives.

232

An Additional Implication

Controversy is inevitable in policy education. My recommendationswould make matters worse. If we educate policy makers and citizensabout the same issues, we will more frequently find ourselves caughtin the middle between policy makers who resent increased citizeninvolvement and citizens who are antagonistic toward policy makers.If we enable citizens to raise their own issues-new ones not other-wise on the agenda-we are likely to antagonize influential interestswho don't want some of these issues raised. If we prod people toreassess their values as well as their understanding of the facts, weare likely to run into criticism and will have an even less secure baseto fall back on.

We need effective ways of enabling people to see and understandthe other side of issues. Not only would they become more effectiveadvocates, but truly "win-win" solutions might more often be discov-ered. Experience with mediating community disputes has produced aset of guidelines that could be adapted for use by educators: Includeall relevant parties. Agree on the agenda and ground rules. Providefor obtaining necessary factual information. Develop an agreed-upon"negotiation text" as a point of departure. Clarify and understandthe various parties' interests (rather than debating their positions).Focus on the problem and avoid personal attacks. Invent "agreementpackages" that can satisfy each party's interests (Madigan, et al.).

Mathews, in describing the philosophy behind the National IssuesForums, provides an articulate statement of desirable objectives. Theforums deal with controversial issues and encourage participants toengage in a process of "working through" the issues. They are notnecessarily expected to reach agreement, but to engage in "repre-sentative thinking" and attain "public knowledge" Representativethinking is thinking that includes the viewpoints of others. It leadsto "public judgment," the shift from one's initial opinions on an issueto "second opinions," which arise after one has listened to otherpeople's arguments and perspectives. Public knowledge is knowledge, not of what I think and what you think, but of what we think-what we as a group agree on and where we disagree. As Mathewsobserves, there are many opportunities for "partisan talk," but fewfor "talk about the common ground."

The model that policy educators need to work on, as I see it, is acombination of empowerment and conflict management. One withoutthe other is insufficient. Empowerment without conflict manage-ment can lead to chaos (and cost us our jobs in the process). Conflictmanagement without empowerment will produce unequal outcomesthat ignore the second and third dimensions of power.

A number of years ago, Brody described what he called "the puzzleof public participation in America." He wondered why participation

233

rates were declining during a time when education levels-consistently the variable most closely correlated with participation-were increasing. I think I have solved the puzzle. The public hasindeed become better educated and capable of a more sophisticatedrole in the political system. People have progressed from blind faithto awareness of public problems and inadequate responses to them.But the political system has lagged in adapting to the public'sgreater intelligence and capability. Channels for public involvementhave not been improved, nor have mechanisms been created to helppeople refine their understanding of public issues (beyond the flood ofundigested facts they receive from the news media). The result isfrustration and withdrawal.

The political system needs a new way of doing business. We needpolicy makers who respect the public's intelligence and are willing toengage in mutual learning. We need policy makers and citizens whorecognize disagreement as a normal element in a diverse population.We need citizens who will try to understand the other side and assistpolicy makers in the search for mutually satisfactory solutions. Cre-ating such changes is our challenge as policy educators.

REFERENCESAlexander, Ernest. "After Rationality, What?" J. Amer Planning Assn. (Winter 1984) pp. 62-69.Anderson, James E. Public Policy Making, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1979.Bachrach, Peter, and Morton S. Baratz. Power and Poverty. New York NY: Oxford University Press, 1970.Bouchier, David. Idealism and Revolution. New York NY: St. Martin's, 1978.Boulding, Kenneth E. "Review of A Strategy of Decision." Amer Socio. Rev 29(1964):930-31.

Brody, Richard A. "The Puzzle of Political Participation in America." The New American Political System, AnthonyKing, ed., pp. 287-324. Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1978.

Coover, Virginia, Ellen Deacon, Charles Esser, and Christopher Moore. Resource Manual for a Living Revolution.Philadelphia PA: New Society Publishers, 1985.

Crenson, Matthew A. The Unpolitics of Air Pollution. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University press, 1971.Dahl, Robert A. Who Governs? New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1961.de Neufville, Judith Innes. "Planning Theory and Practice: Bridging the Gap." J. Plan. Educ and Res. (Summer,

1983) pp. 35-45.Dolbeare, Kenneth M., and Patricia Dolbeare. American Ideologies. Chicago IL: Rand McNally, 1976.Domhoff, G. William. The Powers That Be. New York NY: Vintage, 1978a.

Who Really Rules? Santa Monica CA: Goodyear, 1978b.Dye, Thomas R. Understanding Public Policy, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978.Friedmann, John. Retracking America, new ed. Emmaus PA: Rodale Press, 1981.Gamson, William A. "Stable Unrepresentation in American Society." Amer Behau Sci. (Nov.-Dec. 1968) pp. 15-21.Garner, Roberta Ash. Social Movements in America, 2nd ed. Chicago IL: Rand McNally, 1977.Gaventa, John. Power and Powerlessness. Urbana IL: University of Illinois Press, 1980.Greene, Robert. "Empowerment, Power, and Change: A Look at Some Dilemmas and Contradictions." Unpublished

paper, Dept. of Human Service Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca NY, 1987.Hahn, Alan J. "Climbing onto the Plateau." Unpublished manuscript, Dept. of Human Service Studies, Cornell

University, Ithaca NY, 1983.Hambrick, Ralph S., Jr., and William P. Snyder. The Analysis of Policy Arguments. Learning Packages in the Policy

Sciences PS-13. Croton-on-Hudson NY: Policy Studies Associates, 1976.Heasley, Robert. "A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of a Community-Based Social Movement Organization on

Changing Community Attitudes." Paper presented to the Pacific Sociological Association, Portland OR, 1987.Henig, Jeffrey R. Neighborhood Mobilization. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1982.Hope, Anne, and Sally Timmel, Training for Transformation. Book 1. Gweru, Zimbabwe: Mambo Press, 1984.House, Verne W., and Ardis Armstrong Young, module developers. Education for Public Decisions. Greensboro NC:

North Carolina State University, in process.Hudson, Barclay M. "Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions." J. Amer Plan.

Assn. 45(1979):387-98.Hunter, Floyd. Community Power Structure. Chapel Hill NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1953Jones, Charles O. An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy, 3rd ed. Monterrey CA: Brooks/Cole, 1984.

234

Lemley, Ann T. "Water Quality: Everyone's Problem." Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies1985, pp. 166-72. Oak Brook IL: Farm Foundation, 1986.

Lukes, Steven. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan, 1974.Madigan, Denise, Gerard McMahon, Lawrence Susskind, and Stephanie Rolley. New Approaches to Resolving Local

Public Disputes. Washington DC: National Institute for Dispute Resolution, 1986.Mathews, David. Democracy: Principles and Practices. Dayton OH: Domestic Policy Association, 1987.Mezirow, Jack. "A Critical Theory of Adult Learning and Education." Adult Education. (Fall 1981) pp. 3-24.

"Concept and Action in Adult Education." Adult Education. (Spring 1985) pp. 142-51.Pollak, Patricia Baron, and A.N. German. Removing Regulatory Barriers to Community-Based Housing for the

Elderly: A Zoning Guide for Local Municipal Officials. Washington DC: American Planning Association, 1987.Pollak, Patricia Baron, et al. Housing Options for Seniors Today: Leader's Guide. Ithaca NY: Cornell Cooperative

Extension and New York State Office for the Aging, 1986.Preston, Larry M., and Royse J. Smith. "An Alternative to Liberal Pedagogy." Teaching Political Science (Winter

1985-86) pp. 82-91.Schattschneider, E.E. The Semi-Sovereign People. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1960.Walton, John. "Community Power and the Retreat from Politics: Full Circle After Twenty Years?" Social Problems

(Feb. 1976) pp. 292-303.Whitmore, Elizabeth. "Evaluation as Empowerment and the Evaluator as Enabler." Paper presented to the Ameri-

can Evaluation Association, Boston MA, 1987.Wolff, Robert Paul. "Beyond Tolerance." A Critique of Pure Tblerance, pp. 3-52. Boston MA: Beacon Press, 1969.Yankelovich, Daniel. "Information, Judgment, and Consensus." Kettering Review (Summer 1983) pp. 25-31.

235